any

Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Ethics
People face product-related accidents every day. However, only a few of them get to receive compensation for the accidents from the manufacturers or salespeople. This may be because they did not take the time to understand the contract, never followed instructions on how to or got the accident out of ignorance. This paper assesses the product liability in the case of Maria and John. When the couple wanted a swimming pool, they settled on an above-ground pool that was manufactured by Swimco. Swimco gave them a deal for a mid-level model with free delivery and setup at only $2000. The sales contract indicated a cover for replacement of any defective for five years after purchase but in place of all other warranties whether expressed or implied and liabilities or obligations on Swimco’s part. However, their 4-year-old daughter fell into the pool when walking around the edge unmonitored. As a result, she suffered minor but permanent brain damage that affected her speech and memory abilities. As a result, Sally’s family sought compensation from the manufacturer claiming that the design was reasonably dangerous for children and hence Swimco should take liability for the accident. Given that the child slipped out of the parent’s watch and went to the pool unmonitored, I wish to defend Swimco as not liable for the accident.
Products can cause injury or death to the user especially if they are not well designed or if they are used improperly. Whenever the product harms the user, they are entitled to compensation by the manufacturer or supplier.

However, the settlement raises many problems between the manufacturer and the user. The safety of a product can be improved, but this comes at an additional cost. The manufacturer has a responsibility to ensure that a product is safe. It, however, calls for an extra cost to ensure maximum safety. These prevention costs take two forms: the human carefulness and product design. Human carefulness has a limited potential for increased perfectibility, but it is even increasingly complex in a world full of warnings and instructions (Moore 468). The later cost is dependent on the progress of technology. However, the rate at which this technology unfolds depends on competition. Competition ensures that improvements are noticeable and that consumers are willing to pay more for the complete safety. To avoid additional costs that could shun away customers, the manufacturers seek to cover any hazards by entering into an agreement with the buyer. However, even after being covered, the theories have been used to define this.
The first if the due care theory which states that the manufacturer or producer has an obligation to exercise due care for their products. This means that all precautions must be taken to ensure the market is free from defects and hazards to the user. The manufacturer will be deemed liable when they fail to exercise due care. The ethical justification is that by failing to make their products free of hazards, they are inflicting unreasonable harm to the users. As a result, they should exercise a higher degree of care in design, materials used, assembling, quality, labeling and warnings, and notifying the customer about the hazards apparent later. One question that rises from theory is whether the manufacturer is obliged to anticipate all conditions under which risks could occur. If this was the case, Swimco ought to have anticipated that children could become uncontrollable and attempt to get into the pool. This would require them to put a childproof on their products. However, on no occasion is the manufacturer liable for foreseeable misuse by the consumer if they had warned them. Swimco had placed a warning label on the pool advising parents from allowing children into the pool unsupervised. However, the theory does not specify what foreseeable hazard is and only insists on cases of physical defects. Hence does not fully cover the user.
The second is the contractual theory. This views the relation between the seller and the buyer as contractual. It is thus subject to the terms of the contract. The assumption made is that the product is used at an acceptable level of quality and for the purpose ordinarily designed for. This theory ensures there is fairness when entering into a contract. The pact is fair only when the contracting parties agree freely. The manufacturer should, however, avoid taking unfair advantage of the consumer by not disclosing of the hazards the user could be exposed to. This theory is ethically fit for commercial contracting. First, it allows the parties to enter into free and fair agreements. According to Holley, this voluntary exchange occurs when the parties understand what they are giving up or receiving, none is compelled and when the parties are given time to make rational judgments (531). Secondly, the theory holds the manufacturer liable for any hazards that were not disclosed during the contract. However, it leaves the consumer exposed to more hazards from defective products which manufacturer claims to contain express warrant. Also, the written contract may use a language that sharply limits the consumer from compensation. This was the case of Sally. Referring to the contractual theory, Swimco was not liable for Sally’s injury. The contract between the parents and Swimco was “instead of all other warranties, expressed or implied, and all other obligations or liabilities on its part” except for the replacement of defective parts (Boatright 237). By this language, any liability for personal harm was excluded from the contract. It was the duty of the parents to monitor Sally from pool and bargain for a valid contract. Further, they ought to have considered the fact that they had children before purchasing the pool. After signing, the contract bound them from accessing any compensation.
The theory of strict liability holds the manufacturer liable for all harm resulting from defective products. This does not require the manufacturer to be negligent or bound by warrants. It is based on the mere fact that the product poses an unreasonable risk. On the one hand, this theory secures utmost protection for the consumer at a low cost while on the other hand, it distributes the cost of injury involved between the parties. This is the best theory of product liability for use by the society to determine liability in case of product related accidents. By holding the manufacturer strictly liable, they will work to prevent accidents at all costs as well as deal with the consequences that result from defective designs. As a result, manufacturers will always guarantee maximum safety so as to reduce compensation costs. On their part, the clients will learn to select products that are safe.
Children are adventurous and will always want to test something they have been warned against. However, this does not limit the manufacturer from making designs that are free from hazards. As indicated by Sally’s parents, the manufacturer ought to have designed a removable ladder and placed a lockable barrier. By having them sign the contract, the manufacturer can be deemed to have avoided the cost of compensation which was undoubtedly probable. Regardless of having an express contract, the theory of strict liability could have made Swimco to pay for the cost of Sally’s injury. Their design should have taken into consideration the fact that parents may not be available to monitor their children all the time. Hence, the design should have an alternative protection mechanism that Swimco had neglected. At the same time, the extra childproofing would have cost the manufacturer only $30 which is a little addition to the actual $2000 cost of the pool.
In the case of the swimming pool accident, the fear of the accident happening among children is itself a deterrent negligence and ignorance even when the parents are assured of compensation for such accidents. There is no substantial reason for insinuating that placing a barrier would deter children from reaching the pools. Rather, the controller of the child’s maneuvers is not the barrier but the parents. Nevertheless, there is no point of designing a product that could pose hazards. Children conducts are uncontrollable and unforeseeable. It is the duty of the experts and parents to protect them from injuries. If a product causes injury to a child, then it is the liability of the manufacturer as it is that of the parent. This paper has identified the theory of strict liability as the best ethical when assessing liability. Both the user and manufacturer should be held liable for injuries and negligence.
Works Cited
Moore, Beverly C. Jr. Product Safety – Who Should Absorb The Cost?. 1st ed. Print.
Boatright, John Raymond. Ethics And The Conduct Of Business. 1st ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2003. Print.
BIBLIOGRAPHY l 1033 Holley, David M. “A moral Evaluation of Business Practices.” Bowie, Tom Beauchamp and Norman E. Business and Professional Ethics. 1988. 530-544.